Anthony Martignoli

Business Law

Torts Quiz

Kottman Transmissions, Inc.

Intention
There was no intent to do damage to the car or cause harm to Faith or the children on the bus.
Damian did try to fix the problem after the other specialist left, but ended up making things
worse the more he tried to fix it. “To constitute an intentional tort, the defendant’s act must be
expressly or implicitly intended the resulting harm ended not be intended” (Emerson 454).

Negligence
“In a tort case arising out of negligence, the plaintiff must show four things: (a) there was a duty
imposed on the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, (b) the defendant breached (violated) that
duty, (c) the breach was the proximate (natural or foreseeable) cause of the harm (causation), and
(d) plaintiff suffered damages” (Emerson 455). Damian accepted the job to fix Faith’s
transmission but didn’t know exactly what was wrong with it. He gave her a false diagnosis of
the problem with her transmission which could also fall under malpractice. “Malpractice is the
“professional misconduct or unreasonable lack of skill; the failure of a professional to use the
skills and learning common to the average reputable members of the profession or those the
professional claims to possess, resulting in injury, loss, or damage to those relying on the
professional” (Emerson 718). The defendant breached the duty because he was unable to fix the
problem, and only made it worse the more he tried to work on it. Instead of making the problem
worse, he should’ve contacted Faith and explained what had happened with the other specialist.
Because the problem was not fixed properly, it caused Faith’s transmission to slip into high gear
and crash into a school bus filled with children. As a result, the plaintiff’s car suffered significant
damages due to the crash.

Along with malpractice, the advertisement saying “we service every brand of transmissions and
use only certified authentic parts to restore your vehicle” and “we know transmissions” serves
under that as well. Kottman’s Transmission Inc promised Faith that they were more than willing
to help and they knew exactly what was wrong. Damian, the mechanic, had no idea how to fix
the transmission or what was wrong with it so he had to purchase a manual which took months
past the date that the car was supposed to be fixed. Damian could also be faced with malpractice
because his duty was to fix the car but failed to measure by the professionals in that field.

Defenses
Kottman Transmission Inc could defend with comparative fault and make a case against the
Trump Enterprise’s Inc with the faulty part that they received from them. “When the negligence
of the plaintiff and the negligence of the defendant are concurrent causes of the plaintiff’s
damages, any damages awarded to the plaintiff are reduced by an amount proportionate to the
degree of the plaintiff’s fault” (Emerson 472). Both parties are at fault for the accident involving
Faiths car.

Remedies
Compensatory Damage: “If there has been a material breach of contract and this breach has
caused measurable damages to the plaintiff, the court will try to compensate the plaintiff by
awarding a sum of money sufficient to make him/her ‘whole’” (Emerson 167). Because there
was a breach in the contract and it caused damages, Kottman Transmission Inc will pay
compensatory damages to Faith for the faulty transmission.

Trump Enterprise’s Inc

The claim that will be filed against the Trump Enterprises Inc is very similar to the claim brought
up against Kottman’s Transmission Inc.

Intention
There was never any intent to put anyone in danger. “To constitute an intentional tort, the
defendant’s act must be expressly or implicitly intended the resulting harm ended not be
intended” (Emerson 454). And because there was nothing expressly or implicitly intended, it
cannot be classified as an intentional tort.

Negligence
“In a tort case arising out of negligence, the plaintiff must show four things: (a) there was a duty
imposed on the defendant in favor of the plaintiff” (Emerson 455). Trump Enterprise Inc had a
duty to provide the new and working transmission to the Kottman’s Transmission Inc. “(b) the
defendant breached (violated) that duty” (Emerson 455). Trump Enterprise breached that duty by
giving a faulty transmission to Kottman’s to install into Faiths car. “(c) The breach was the
proximate (natural or foreseeable) cause of the harm (causation)” (Emerson 455). Because the
fault part was put into the car (even though it was unknowingly faulty), it still caused the car
accident. “(d) Plaintiff suffered damages” (Emerson 455). Faith smashed into a school bus
injuring the children inside due to the transmission slipping into high gear.

Strict Liability
“Under the doctrine of strict liability, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s injuries despite the
absence of negligence or intentional, wrongful acts” (Emerson 460). “The strict liability of some
manufacturers or employers is a matter of public policy based on the assumption that these
defendants are in a better position to shoulder the cost of injury than are potential plaintiffs”
(Emerson 460). Providing faulty parts is an extreme liability because those companies, such as
Trump Enterprise’s Inc, are expected to provide working/useable parts for cars.

Defenses
Similar to the claim against Kottman’s, could defend with comparative fault against Kottman’s
and argue that the transmission itself wasn’t fault but it was the mechanic that installed it the
wrong way. There was already evidence that Damian didn’t know how to fix the transmission in
the first place. “When the negligence of the plaintiff and the negligence of the defendant are
concurrent causes of the plaintiff’s damages, any damages awarded to the plaintiff are reduced
by an amount proportionate to the degree of the plaintiff’s fault” (Emerson 472).

Remedies
“Consequential damages are also allowed as part of the compensatory damages if the breaching
party knew or has reason to know that losses would result from the breach” (Emerson 169).
“These indirect damages can include injury and lost profits caused by faulty performance if the
principles of foreseeability and certainty are met” (Emerson 169). Although there was no intent
to give the transmission company a faulty part, they still sent out the part and it caused an
accident.
 Work Cited
Emerson, Robert W. Business Law. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's, 2015. Print.